Last month, Turkey invoked
the Article IV of the Atlantic charter that stipulates: “The parties will
consult together whenever, in the opinion of any of them, the territorial
integrity, political independence or security of any of the parties is
threatened”, and called on a meeting of the NATO member states, to discuss its
response to the shooting down of one of its warplanes by Syrian forces over the
Mediterranean. It was important for Turkey to invoke article 4 before
proceeding to article V of the Atlantic Charter that calls for a collective
self-defense as enshrined in the article 51 of the UN Charter. The meeting
finished with a unanimous declaration condemning the Syrian aggression and
pledging solidarity with Turkey. The persistence of tensions between Turkey and
Syria might pave the way for a long-standing demand of some of the Western
countries to militarily intervene in Syria. Considering the precarious security
situation in the Middle-East and North Africa, a military intervention in Syria
will destabilize the already volatile region. Libya is still coping with a
civil war and a government that fails to exercise effective control over its
territories. The role of NATO - which is a defensive military alliance - has
already been widely criticized due to its offensive role in Libya. Military
intervention in Syria may also result in the rise of Islamists in addition to a
protracted civil war.
The international community
is facing a dilemma; on one hand they are blamed for their inaction to protect
the civilians from the massacre at the hands of the Assad regime, and on the
other hand they are afraid that Syria might follow the course of Libya; a
protracted civil war; mass-migration; and no effective government. The
invocation of Article V of the Atlantic treaty along with the article 51
(Self-defense) of the UN charter gives a way-out to the WEST to intervene
without a Chapter VII resolution of the UN Security Council. Keeping in mind
the Russia’s unconditional support to the Assad’s regime and the failure of the
Annan plan, this scenario could be provide the only possible legal option for a
military intervention in Syria. Despite the legality of military intervention,
the repercussions of the intervention are not very bright, which might impede a
quick decision. Sooner or later, a military intervention in Syria is inevitable.
The transforming role of Turkey
is also very important. Turkey restrained from using force last years when nine
of its citizens were killed by Israeli military forces during the flotilla
incident. Turkey also refused to provide logistics and passage to the US,
during the occupation of Iraq. In case of Syria, Turkey has been a very vocal
critique of the Assad regime; Turkey was the first country to organize a
meeting of the Syrian opposition in Istanbul. The reaction of Syria is also not very
positive; the decision to conduct military exercises next to Turkish border,
while Turkish forces are taking an aggressive posture, has the potential to
further deteriorate the situation. The situation could have been better, if
Syria could have rendered a sincere apology.
The recent statement by the French President François Hollande – that he
will not rule out a possibility of a military intervention in Syria – also shows
the increasing willingness of the international community to intervene in Syria
on humanitarian grounds. With the strong opposition of Russia and China the
invocation of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is least likely to be possible.
Hence any future skirmish between Turkey and Syria will provide an opportunity
for a NATO led military intervention in Syria without a UNSC resolution under
chapter VII.
* The article was originally
written for online publication Tandem Post, and it was published on July 24,
2012.
